50 Comments

• surfsidetx3 | Apr 30, 2013, 12:56 PM EDT

  I gave up on the nytimes years ago. It is better than a shetl newspaper written for a limited audience I did a search through the NYTimes search engine on priest and sex was nearly always attached to the link, even though the story had nothing to do with any sex scandal I just imagined some brillo headed Larry Fine type snickering as he created the database and just as good looking!

• jacersagain | Dec 27, 2010, 02:48 PM EST

  I agree with glorybe1929 to some extent. But I have to ask glorybe1920 to prove that Jesus Christ was wrong in appointing a feeble Rock, Saul, as the first bishop of his church, and that His Holy Spirit was wrong in appointing every other bishop of the Roman, Greek, Alexandrian, Muscovite, Bostonian, Alaskan, Irish, Jerusalem or Chinese et al Christian Churches. Please provide evidence that the Jesus event was wrong.

• glorybe1929 | Nov 17, 2010, 03:27 PM EST

  Every Newspaper and every human being with a concience bigger than the Pope and his cohorts SHOULD BE ANTI-CATHOLIC!!!(And that's a pretty small concience, if it's one at all) The RCC is not a religion of Jesus Christ but a religion of MAN. Masquerading as it was the first and foremost of all of Christianity. What a lie of the Devil. St Paul warned the new Christians that there were MANY imposters in their little groups, that were teaching a gospel other than the Gospel that Jesus Christ taught them. St Paul said "even if they come to you as Angels ,do not listen to them"! Some did and you have what is called the bastardation of Christianity. Shameful but true. The Devil got his hooks in and his followers ran with it. Now's the Time to give it back to the devil and his cohorts. AND find what REAL CHRISTIANITY IS ALL ABOUT! IT'S SO WONDERFUL.

• Nicoletta | Nov 05, 2010, 12:39 AM EDT

  Good article. Every eejit and his dog know that the NY Times is anti-Catholic.

• Carroll09 | Oct 31, 2010, 05:22 PM EDT

  Hotdubliner- the Catholic Church does teach, as Christ did, that He (God) is Love. However, God is also Just and Exacting. Love does not mean having an "anything goes" attitude - that is to say, it is not love to merely follow the ways of the world. The ways of the world are not the measuring standard for Christians - all following the ways of the world leads to is moral relativism which is a major threat to society. Christ is the One Whom Christians should be using as their moral compass. Yes, Christ preached love, but he was most certainly not shy about challenging the outlook of contemporary society, and certainly did not back away from condemning those who pretended to be following God's law but were simply using the Law to suit themselves. The Church, by the way, acknowledges that we are all sinners, and therefore we can all count ourselves as unworthy - however it teaches that ALL should be treated with respect. Respect, however, does not mean condoning a particular action - real love does not does not do this either. Real love and respect for the dignity of the individual means taking them as they are, but wanting better things for them - this is what the Church does.

• hotdubliner | Oct 30, 2010, 03:23 PM EDT

  As long as any religious organization engages in "non-religious behaviour," i.e., discrimination/failure to include, the rights and dignity of those individuals deemed "unworthy" in its eyes, said religion will be held up to ridicule and derision. Look people, Jesus (and many other prophets) supposedly claims "God is Love" .... but I beg the question, Where is the Love? Where's the respect? Where is our willingness to acknowledge that an individual's right to belong to any faith, or one's choice to opt out, appears to be simply gone with the wind? Until universal respect for individual choice exists, we'll be in the same boat for, oh about another millennium, or two! "God Bless us, everyone" (Charles Dickens)

• SingleDonald | Oct 28, 2010, 11:00 AM EDT

  Irish Tierney, I agree with the first part of your post, regarding Catholic bashing, and support soon to be Cardinal Timothy Dolan. As to the second matter, please learn the difference between pedophilia, statutary rape, and consensual dating between 2 adults, which I have attempted to illustrate. You are right, in a way-nobody should care if a professor (college level) goes out with an adult student. The teacher shouldn't be subject to "discipline" if he/she is seen at an off campus restaurant, or movie theater with the student. Anyone who disagrees should himself/herself "get a life", as this is a matter of Civil Rights! It could also be a matter of Constitutional Rights, if the school is a public institution.

• Advocate | Oct 27, 2010, 10:21 PM EDT

  All can be 'bashed' in a fun way or? That is all except Muslims! --- WOW! That could bring a death sentence, and Obame just told us he'll allow (sic), 80,000 Muslims to migrate to what's left of OUR America. Isn't that good of him? What a guy! Just wish he liked America, maybe just a tiny bit???

• IrishTierney | Oct 27, 2010, 01:08 PM EDT

  The Archbishop is right. It's still okay to bash us Catholics, and Christianity in general for that matter. A complete double-standard. If people spent more time worshiping, helping out in their communities, and doing unto others, this world would be a much better place! How in the world could any adult get sexually aroused over a child or teenager. I just don't get it. Pedofiles should be castrated. Political correctness should be put to death. Who gives a rats-ass if the professor can't a student, I've got more important things to worry about. Definately won't be visiting Dank's facebook page there singledonald! Get a life!

• SingleDonald | Oct 27, 2010, 10:16 AM EDT

  eirighamach, Great statement, regarding PC! If you are on Facebook, visit Barry Dank's page. He is a retired professor, who has a Group called "Sexual Consent on Campus". It is a defense of consensual dating, between professors & students, which directly challenges "dating bans", which many PC oriented college administrations have passed. I have joined the group, and have contributed many comments on the professor's log, The Dank Professor. Prof. Barry taught in the California University system, though he is originally from Long Island. He now resides in Arizona. Do check out his Facebook page, and also his Dank Professor log.

• eirighamach | Oct 26, 2010, 12:31 PM EDT

  In reply to haikued2: Political correctness, PC, is a set of behavioral rules enacted by college administrators-- NOT professors-- in their attempts to defuse conflict among students of different genders, sexual orientations, ethnicities, political affiliations, etc. With various forms of censorship, and PC IS a heavy-handed form of censorship, practiced by other groups on the increase, the college classrooms of US public universities and non-church-affiliated private colleges and universities may become the last stand of freedom of speech. The professoriate and its organizations, such as AAUP, continue to defend academic freedom, that "fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth is found." Catholic colleges in recent generations, have, in general, enforced compliance of teaching with church doctrine. With that group of exceptions, however, freedom of speech is alive and well in most college and university classrooms despite the silly rules one can find in codes of student conduct.

• eirighamach | Oct 26, 2010, 10:53 AM EDT

  I agree with SingleDonald again. I'm no fan of celibacy--for anyone. Guilt-tripping over sex has taken a heavy toll: Phoebe Prince, the young man from Rutgers who jumped from the GWB, many others, and much anguish. I think it is a mistake to opt for a religion that makes marriage a sacrament rather than a sacramental rite with blessing as most Christians consider it. The status of "sacrament" invites theologians into the bedroom to legislate what consenting adults may and may not do sexually. If human relationships are not free of the control of authority figures, what's left of freedom to enjoy? Sex itself can get dull without a spirit of adventure and occasional flights of fantasy. Sin? I remember being told once by a Franciscan monk that God created us to experience joy, not suffering.

• SingleDonald | Oct 25, 2010, 07:59 PM EDT

  SVCMalcolm' I must disagree with you on a couple of your statements. 1- Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, can be attracted to those of younger age, so long as those members are adults, at or least past the age of consent. Is it wrong for a straight baby boomer guy to like women from Generations X & Y ? 2-Pedophiles go after kids who are pre puberty. For an adult to seek someone past puberty, but under the age of consent, it is considered sexual misconduct, or in the worst case, statutory rape. 3- I challenge your "95% of pedophiles are heterosexual" assertion. I conceded that "Type 3" pedophiles exist, such as the pervert who abused Steven Staynor, for 7 years. I'm not homophobic, but wish the gay community wouldn't blame all their woes on the heterosexual population! This reminds me of a homosexual preacher, in Milwaukee, who said that Jeffrey Dahmer was actually straight! Jeffrey was straight like Father Ritter was straight, and I am gay! I wish to be fair to people, but would like them to be more realistic,rather than to use their agenda to deflect most blame away from the gay community!

• Tilliewillow | Oct 25, 2010, 07:10 PM EDT

  To gmtsource: blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah.

• Tilliewillow | Oct 25, 2010, 07:07 PM EDT

  The RC church in the states takes itself very seriously -- almost humorously so. I have yet to see anything "anti-Catholic" although it may be called that by paranoid RCs or those who wish to recall the 'good old days' when the only church was the RCC. HAve a sense of humor; don't over react; if you want to try to run people's lives and impose unreasonable and theologically questionable rules, then you are ripe for criticism. WAke up. Catholics are nothing special. All church-goers as well as religious people in general need to understand that religion is intended to assist people, not restrict them.

• SCVMal | Oct 25, 2010, 04:44 PM EDT

  As far as Dolan is concerned, the Ancient Order of Hibernians has used their affiliation with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese's "blessing" to exclude Irish Gays and Lesbians from participating in NYC's St. Patrick's Day Parade for years. This is NOT discrimination based upon bigotry? Cardinal O'Connor's "involvement" with AIDS/HIV patients (NOT "victims") were press presentations. He presided at the opening of the AIDS Clinics that were started by the Hospitals! He is represented as a condom because he saw condoms as birth control rather than as orphan prevention, especially in Africa! He showed no interst in the AIDS crisis until ACT UP held a protest during one of his sermons in St. Pat's. O'Connor is KNOWN for his open discrimination and harsh words for/about gay people, specifically the cessation of any and all types of ministry to Catholics who happen to be gay or lesbian from all Diocesan properties: Churches, schools, Convents, etc., costs of which were NOT borne by the Archdiocese. Mr. Farrel conveniently forgets that last year a Dutch Newspaper ran a cartoon about Muhammad, which resulted in death threats from Muslims worldwide on the cartoonist, who had to go into hiding. Truth is the Roman Catholic Church is one of the most anti-Christlike Churches on the Planet towards the role of lay women, towards Catholics who happen to be gay/lesbian/transgendered, towards victims of pedophile (heterosexual) priests, towards Women Religious, towards women/girls impregnated by rape/incest, towards spousal abusers... The truth hurts, Mr. Farrel...especially the victims of the Church.

• SCVMal | Oct 25, 2010, 04:19 PM EDT

  A homosexual is someone who is sexually attracted to a person of the same sex of the same or older age. A pedophile is a person who has sex (or is turned on by) with minor children. 95% of pedophiles are heterosexual and 5% of those are women! The first time that the Vatican admitted there were gay priests was when they blamed the raping and sexual molestation of children on the gay Priests in the USA and not only protected the pedophile priests but protected the Bishops who relocated the pedophiles from Parish to Parish, and brought Cardinal Law from Boston to the Vatican to avoid prosecution for protecting the pedophile priests. The Roman catholic Church has evolved from being one of the most Christ-like Churches (during post Vatican II times to becoming allied with the most fundamentalist Churches in America (other than Liturgical beliefs and practices). The current Pope is the most homophobic Pope in history! What does HE have to be afraid of given his chastity and Pope-mobile? He is also so opposed to women! HE instigated an investigation of Women Religious Orders in the USA soon after his investigation of gays in the US Seminaries. Thank God, the Women Religious had more balls than the males who run the Seminaries and many refused to participate. All of this abuse of kids and adults in the name of God? I think not! In the name of male power!

• haikued2 | Oct 25, 2010, 01:31 PM EDT

  Dennis Q. Go to Saudi Arabia and see if you can buy an Imams house for a Catholic center and see what religious tolerance is all about. The members of that parish had every right to express their displeasure with the sale. This is still America, at least for awhile. The Constitution doesn't trump Freedom of speech with political correctness for a good reason political correctness will kill a nation.

• haikued2 | Oct 25, 2010, 01:26 PM EDT

  "out of bounds" is the politically correct way to avoid reality. When our freedom of expression is truncated to only include subjects politicos and moronic college professors want to allow, we are in deep kim chi...and we are right now. Politically correct is the moral equivalent of covering up any problem by calling it something else. In problem solving you cannot get the right answer if you can't use the correct and accurate terms in your algorithms. When will we wake up to the fact we are being conned by a bunch of snakes.

• SingleDonald | Oct 25, 2010, 12:38 PM EDT

  eiriamach, I agree with your sentiment that no particular group should bear the brunt of the Church pedophile scandal. Concerning celibacy, I have long questioned the sensibility of having this rule among heterosexuals. I guess nobody's "vow of celibacy" can truly be trusted, be they straight or gay. It just seems so draconian to attempt to enforce. BTW, does anybody really still believe that sexual fantasies, for say a Jennifer Aniston, are "mortal sins", worthy of eternal damnation, unless we beg God's forgiveness? Such a "god" would really be a tyrant, and an egomaniac control freak, not worthy of our respect.

• DennisQ | Oct 25, 2010, 02:36 AM EDT

  Earlier this year, St. Margaret Mary parish in Staten Island agreed to sell its no longer used convent to the Muslim American Society. It was an excellent opportunity for the Archdiocese to take a stand for religious liberty, especially since opposition to the sale came mostly from Catholics. A word from Archbishop Dolan would have gone a long way towards promoting religious understanding.
  
  Archbishop Dolan, however, couldn't be bothered. He allowed parishioners to blackmail the pastor by threatening to withhold support if the deal went through. The Archdiocese also failed to attend a meeting between Catholics and Muslims. It was a big disappointment to Muslims who'd hoped to buy the property to use as a place of worship.
  
  Archbishop Dolan strikes me as a manipulative person, one who will defend Catholic values when it's easy to do so. But he refused to intervene on behalf of Muslims victimized by bigoted Catholics. Now he's looking for the greater community to defend Catholicism against accusations of hypocrisy. Good luck with that one, Your Eminence. He had a clear opportunity to assert Christian values himself, and let's call it what it is - he chickened out.

• ghelbig13 | Oct 25, 2010, 01:38 AM EDT

  I am a German Lutheran and Italian Catholic. My ex-wife and daughter are Shia Ismaili Muslim. I compare them to Quakers as to their imperatives on community and charitable works and their devotion to pacifism. They are the opposite of the the fanatical elements of the religion so prominent now in the news. My point is that ALL RELIGIONS ARE UNDER ATTACK in the media. The popular media seems to be trashing anyone and anything that ascibes to a higher power. Not only has an emiricist mentally, but a downright atheist judgmentalism has has gripped this neo-selfrighteoussness. This self-righteousness, though seemingly an oxymoron, maintains that I am better than you because I don't believe in anything. Though I believe that in the kingdom of Heaven, there are many mansions, I implore you to continue to believe ... and the Just and True shall triumph Thank you for allowing me this opportunity. P S: In Islam, Muhammed (Peace be upon Him) is not the major Prophet, it is someone called Jesus (Esa/Isa) (Peace be upon Him). Peace and God's Blessings to all. I do believe one may judge and form opinion on past acts

• killowen | Oct 24, 2010, 10:36 PM EDT

  Dolan has to walk the strait and narrow - be careful with his words to ensure he not be shunned by our worldwide Masters chaps.

• killowen | Oct 24, 2010, 10:33 PM EDT

  Christians only know to turn the other cheek and take it.

• gmtsource | Oct 24, 2010, 09:57 PM EDT

  The New York Times has insulted The Christian (Catholic) Values. They must apologize without any further loss of time. Depicting John Cardinal O'Connor as a condom and a review of a work called "The Divine Sister" which pokes fun at nuns.How shameful is this using such unprecedented language and portrait. Catholics and Christians must come forward and hit back NYT or anyone who dares speaking in any derogatory language against The Church. This is an attack on The Church. Thank you Archbishop Timothy Dolan!

• killowen | Oct 24, 2010, 08:06 PM EDT

  The long practice of turning the other cheek and waiting heavenly rewards makes it difficult to live in the here and now with sharks all about. When this paradym is changed wherein a whine shame and blame approach is adopted - then when something like this is put into practice over time it may bear fruit. RCs must learn from the sharks who've been in practice for thousands of years. Not in our lifetime will any relief be possible.

• killowen | Oct 24, 2010, 08:06 PM EDT

  “Show me when you do this to the Islamic community, to the Je$wish community, to the African American community" he said. If my aunt had b..... she'd be my uncle. The long practice of turning the other cheek and waiting heavenly rewards makes it difficult to live in the here and now with sharks all about. When this paradym is changed wherein a whine shame and blame approach is adopted - then when something like this is put into practice over time it may bear fruit. RCs must learn from the sharks who've been in practice for thousands of years. Not in our lifetime will any relief be possible.

• killowen | Oct 24, 2010, 08:05 PM EDT

  “Show me when you do this to the Islamic community, to the Jewish community, to the African American community" he said. If my aunt had b..... she'd be my uncle. The long practice of turning the other cheek and waiting heavenly rewards makes it difficult to live in the here and now with sharks all about. When this paradym is changed wherein a whine shame and blame approach is adopted - then when something like this is put into practice over time it may bear fruit. RCs must learn from the sharks who've been in practice for thousands of years. Not in our lifetime will any relief be possible.

• killowen | Oct 24, 2010, 07:55 PM EDT

  Anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice it seems to me in America. If the same comments that were made about Catholic religious figures were aimed at Rabbis, immams or Dali Lamas there would be widespread outrage. “Show me when you do this to the Islamic community, to the Jewish community, to the African American community" he said. If my aunt had b.... she'd be my uncle. Ask him who handles his Catholic Charities accounting - can't seem to

• Carroll09 | Oct 24, 2010, 06:04 PM EDT

  Clancey - yes, the media has played a big part in exposing the abuse scandal. One cannot fault them for that- however, the New York Times was hardly unbiased on that issue, nor entirely concerned with reporting the facts. It tried to pin the case of Fr Lawrence Murphy squarely at the doors of the Vatican, ignoring, very conveniently, the fact that Murphy's own bishops could have removed him from ministry decades before the Vatican was even informed of the case. Not to mention its complete ignorance of the reality of what the Church has ACTUALLY done to deal with the problem of abuse. As for your charge that Archbishop Dolan is attempting to put up a smokescreen, I don't think it's a runner really - the Archbishop has always taken a very hard line on abuse, and most certainly does not underestimate the gravity of the crimes which have been committed by some in the Church. And anyway, two wrongs don't make a right - yes, the abuse issue is a horrible chapter in the Church's history, but that still doesn't give the New York Times or any other section of the media the right to resort to disgusting and offensive prejudices. As for the charges that some are making that Dolan is being hypocritical in pointing out the NYTs bias, I wonder would any of you - presuming that all here have erred in some way at some stage - refuse to (for example) report a friend's car stolen? Using the reasoning that some are using to brand Dolan as hypocritical, surely to do so would be hypocritical, self-righteous and judgemental - I mean, this reasoning seems to suggest that only those who have never put a foot wrong can recognise wrongdoing, crime, bias, or revolting moral standards, which, of course, is rubbish.

• gaeilgesdamhsa | Oct 24, 2010, 05:50 PM EDT

  I like what McNabb said. I totally agree.

• eiriamach | Oct 24, 2010, 05:43 PM EDT

  SingleDonald, I do not wish to challenge your classifications of pedophiles. I meant only to reply to the simple-minded suggestion that the sexually predatory priests are really homosexuals. This claim is one of endless attempts to blame some group other than "the real Catholics" for the pedophile priest scandal and to give credence to the pope's claim that the vow of celibacy of a gay male is unworthy and not to be trusted.

• SingleDonald | Oct 24, 2010, 05:16 PM EDT

  eiramach & katiemac, Pedophilia is defined as going after pre puberty children, for sexual gratification. The way I understand it, there are 3 types: 1)Heterosexual men who go after little girls 2)Homosexual men who go after little boys 3)Men who are otherwise straight, but who have a side interest in little boys. The monster who abused Steven Stayner was a type 3 pedophile. When Steven turned 14, the pervert lost interest in him as a "sex partner", as he was becoming a man. He then kidnapped a 6 or 7 year old boy, who Steven heroically rescued. When the two met the police, Steven said that the boy he was rescuing had been missing for 3 weeks, but that he (Steven) had been missing for 7 years! Father Bruce Ritter was not a pedophile, as he never went after pre puberty kids. ALL of his statuary rape victims (boys) were past puberty, but under the age of consent. He even had 26 year old Kevin Kite as a sex partner, the young man who turned him over to the D.A.'s office. For anybody to deny that Father Ritter was gay would be absurd. He abused his homosexuality, by going after underage boys, all of whom were past puberty.

• eiriamach | Oct 24, 2010, 04:21 PM EDT

  Katgiemac, how many times do we need to explain it to you? Pedophilia is NOT homosexuality, and the statistics tell us that homosexuals are less likely than heterosexuals to rape. The vast majority of rapists have opposite-sex victims; pedophiles violate children. It's that simple--and tragic and morally culpable, especially when men of religion cover up the pedophila.

• borefield | Oct 24, 2010, 04:20 PM EDT

  I did not see the NY Times article. Am I surprised? of course not. Archbishop Dolan is so right when he says would this be tolerated if it were a Rabbi, a Black Misister or an Immam, the Times would be shut down, burned, or muslim with a bomb strapped to his body walk in frontof the building and detonate the bomb. I have said before, a few years ago when the sculpture of the Virgin Mary with dung on her was displayed at the Brooklyn museum it was depicted as art. Again, if she was an icon of any other religon it would not be tolerated. There is not enough outrage within the catholic community to show this for what it is, christian and catholic and women bashing. I will forward this article on to my friend, If you have any ideas as to getting signatures to send to NY politican write an article on it. Send it to Bill O'Reilly. I know the people at Irish Central hate Fox News however they don't cave in to these kind of cowards. I am really outraged.

• eiriamach | Oct 24, 2010, 04:13 PM EDT

  No, McNabb, I do not take cheap shots at Islam; I support the Muslim women working for equal status in their mosques and working to end Islamic mistreatment of women and girls. I do not take "cheap shots" at all. Try telling the parents of violated children that speaking out against rapist priests is a "cheap shot." Try telling the mother of a raped and pregnant 12-year-old that the child must die, as most pregnant children do if they are forced to try to carry a pregnancy to term. So much for the Catholic reading of the "law of nature" when "nature" has girls entering puberty at age 7, women fertile through their mid-50s, and millions across the globe infected with the AIDS virus who are denied condoms because of the power of the Catholic clergy, we let a dead-letter reading of "nature" keep us from saving lives and preventing suffering? One could go on and on. . . . and none of these critical moral issues is a "cheap shot." Where is the intellectual dishonesty in speaking truth to power? There is enough evidence in the pontiff's own words for every instance of hypocrisy I cited, and we all know it. American priests, bishops, and cardinals need the guts to tell the truth and to leave their flocks free to cast votes as conscience determines. Nothing deflects a "cheap shot" like the admission of truth. If you think that the NY Times is taking cheap shots at the Catholic Church and you think my comments are "hateful, insulting," then just how does one communicate plain unchallenged facts to someone with your mind set? The fact that some of these charges can be leveled at Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim clerics is completely irrelevant to Farrell's piece (a red herring), and I am responding to what is written here.

• galway2001 | Oct 24, 2010, 03:04 PM EDT

  when is the public going to stop buying the times.DO NOT THE TIMES PERIOD....

• katieherk | Oct 24, 2010, 02:32 PM EDT

  Catholic bashing has been a favorite game for all liberal media. McNabb says it right, Eiriamach is loosie-goosie!

• manhattan | Oct 24, 2010, 02:22 PM EDT

  Right on again McNabb.

• McNabb1966 | Oct 24, 2010, 01:32 PM EDT

  @eiriamach...As I said, not much hope of intellectual honesty from your camp. Thanks for illustrating what I was talking about. Of course you're welcome to your opinions but, not surprisingly, you skirted the main issue here: the hypocrisy of taking cheap shots at Catholicism on a regular basis without having the courage to take similar cheap shots at Judaism, Islam, on the same issues. Most of your laundry list of gripes could just as easily be addressed to Islam and even Judaism (which, of course, doesn't have the same kind of easily-targeted hierarchy that the Catholic Church has). The difference is that you can make those arguments against the Catholic Church without having to go into hiding afterwards. But I don't see folks like you taking the same cheap shots at Islam, for instance, on women's issues. Or homosexuality. In addition to NOT fearing violent retribution from Catholics, it's also true that the Catholic Church provides the perfect target for hate: the Pope. It's easy to make a target out of the Pope. It's been done for centuries verbally, in writing and even physically. Which reminds me, when the Pope was shot and almost killed by a Muslim, did anything happen (other than the Pope forgiving the would-be assassin)? Did a world-wide "crusade" break out? Of course not. It's laughable to hear anybody claim that the Church gets attacked because it "deserves" it rather than because it's the easiest, safest target. Food for thought: why is it that when Catholics express their opinions on issues that don't conform to liberal ideology it's deemed "offensive" but liberals are allowed to say the most hateful, insulting things about Catholics and it's dismissed as mere "criticism" or "humor" or "art?"

• johnozed | Oct 24, 2010, 01:01 PM EDT

  Oh the poor put upon church. Too busy funding the fight against same sex marriage to maintain finances for schools and parishes. Too busy sending out DVD's instead of tending to the poor. Too effin bad Dolan.

• manhattan | Oct 24, 2010, 12:17 PM EDT

  It's OK to lump all Priests as predators of children and say the most disgusting things about nuns. God forbid you say something about moslems and you are accused of bigotry. All of us that went to Catholic schools in the bad old days of corporal punishment have plenty of complaints about some aspects of the Catholic Church. And we can say it without getting fired(Juan Williams) or in a moslem country being beheaded. What the heck are we afraid of? Are we going to never be able to say "MOSLEM" without a backlash from the pathetic cowards that are playing into the fanatics hands. Cardinal O'Connor was a wonderful truly holy Man that was the best cardinal New York ever had.

• Clancey | Oct 24, 2010, 11:07 AM EDT

  The Times has been very aggressive in covering sexual abuse by Catholic clergy. Clearly, this is Dolan's "payback," and an attempt to throw up a smokescreen and diversion. The Catholic Church continues to do whatever it can to shield itself from culpability for the outrages perpetrated by priests and nuns on children, and for how the hierarchy covered them up for decades. Never let them off the hook.

• PhlutiePhan | Oct 24, 2010, 11:05 AM EDT

  I support Archbishop Dolan on this issue.

• Ms.Gail | Oct 24, 2010, 11:01 AM EDT

  It's not just Catholics, but all Christians that are subjected to disdane in the current media. This country seems to be turning anit Christian.

• SCVMal | Oct 24, 2010, 10:44 AM EDT

  Hey Russm535il. The WSJ and Fox News are so slanted, tainted and bigoted in their blatant one-sided reporting that they make THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER look like a model of journalism. (1st generation Irish-American with dual citizenship)

• russm535il | Oct 24, 2010, 10:30 AM EDT

  I agree the NY Times is failing loosing advertizing and subscriptions - I cancelled my subscription a year ago The Wall Street is the #1 newspaper in the World with excellent coverage of World events I encourage all Times readres tio switch to the WSJ you'll get a much better read ! Russ DeJulio ( Half Irish - My Mom ) Pittsburgh,PA

• eiriamach | Oct 24, 2010, 09:24 AM EDT

  McNabb, it is not the Catholic Church's lack of muscle that makes it a current target. It is the Church's hypocrisy toward gays, women, and other religions. Catholics recently spent millions of $$ trying to persuade state legislatures not to extend the time frame for victims of sexual abuse to report the abuse--and this while claiming to repent over the sexual predation of Catholic priests. These are not the actions of a weak organization that cannot threaten those who criticize it.

• eiriamach | Oct 24, 2010, 09:08 AM EDT

  Has the pope not offended gays with his vocal opposition to anti-discrimination legislation? Has the pope not offended Muslims with his inflammatory remarks about their history? Has the pope not offended Jews by prescribing arrogant prayers for their conversion and hinting at their responsibility for the Holocaust? Has the pope not treated women, including nuns, as less than morally capable creatures for whom mindless obedience to male authority is the only attitude acceptable to the Vatican? Has the pope not demonized feminists and gays with his "straight and subservient only" invitation to Anglicans to fast-track into the Roman church? Dolan is right that such bias merits outrage, but he is blind to it within his own house. Whatever you think of the NY Times' reviews of art that targets religion, Dolan is in a hopelessly weak position to complain about bias in others until he begins to stand up to the far-right religious-extremist fanaticism coming from Rome. Artists satirize hypocrisy. That's one of the values of art, one of the contributions of artists, to make the hypocrisies of our age transparent to us so that we can move away from them, and Dolan's annoyance at the NY Times for taking notice just underscores the artists' message.

• McNabb1966 | Oct 24, 2010, 08:48 AM EDT

  Excellent points. And let's be clear: It's not about whether or not you ARE a Catholic or if you WERE a Catholic or even if you "agree with" the tenets of the Church. The issue here is the hypocrisy that causes some people to justify taking cheap shots at Catholicism when they would never dare take similar shots at other religions. Anti-Catholic bigotry has always been with us, of course. But nowadays it's really more about the fact that comedians and "artists" and brainless pundits on the Left don't feel a sense of threat from Catholics that they do with other groups. So Catholicism gets hit harder simply because it's the "safe" choice. So the anti-religious nuts on the Left are cowardly enough to go after the religious group that won't issue a fatwa or bring down unbearable social pressure as punishment. This is not to say that the Catholic Church should be immune to scrutiny...we know what the issues have been. It's one thing to address serious issues like abuse and corruption. But what do those serious issues have to do with taking cheap shots at individuals like Cardinal O'Connor and groups like nuns? I know that there will be plenty of nasty, arrogant comments from anti-religious, kool-aid drinking wingnuts on here. The question is whether or not any of them have the intellectual honesty to admit that there is a huge double-standard at work here.